How Much Do I Need to Know About My Potential Spouse's Sexual Past? My Response

I am a young single Christian woman. I made a commitment at a very young age to remain sexually chaste, and I’ve done so. I have dated other boys, but always just in groups in a very casual setting. Now, however, I am seeing a young Christian man who seems great in every way. We have dated for about a month, and I really like him. He treats my family (my father is deceased but my mother and sisters live near me) great, and all my friends like him.

Here’s my question. I am wondering what his sexual past looks like, in order to know what I’m getting into. Has he been with other women, sexually? If so, how many and in what way? Has he ever had a problem with pornography? With every week that goes by, I’m more and more in love with him, and I’m afraid to keep getting my hopes up only to have them dashed when we’re right at the point of marriage.

I’m not saying that any particular information would necessarily kill the relationship, but I’d sure like to know something about this to know what I’m getting myself into. It sure seems awkward, though, to say, “So tell me about your sex life?” Would that be forcing too much intimacy too soon? Is it right for a woman to be so forward with a man who’s not her husband? Do I ever need to know this?

My question: should I ask him about his past? If so, how should I ask it, and at what point in the relationship?

True Love Waiting

Dear True,

First of all, I agree with you that this is something important for you to know, should this man become your husband. His body and his sexuality, the Bible says, will belong to you (1 Cor. 7:4). Moreover, the sexual union is not, whatever our broken culture might try to think, simply a neurological or even emotional response. The sexual union, mysteriously, forms a personal union (1 Cor. 6:16). Your husband’s “past” will, in a very real sense, become part of your story too.

Having said that, though, this question can be very dangerous for you, at this point. As you seem to recognize, dating is about discerning whether someone would be a good prospect for marriage. I’ve seen several budding relationships wrecked by a “DTR” (“define the relationship” talk) about such matters that formed, prematurely, an inappropriate emotional intimacy.

I do not think, at this time, you need to delve into the details (or lack thereof) of his past. What’s important for you to know is how he views sexual immorality. A man who will brush off past fornication as “no big deal” from which he’s “moved on” is a man with a conscience trained to do the same thing with future adultery.

I would recommend asking this man what his convictions are about protecting himself, and his future marriage, from sexual immorality. You might ask him how he would counsel his son to flee pornography or other forms of immorality. I think you’ll be able to gauge a lot from the wisdom and gravity (or lack thereof) he displays.

As the discernment process continues, though, your need to know further will expand. By that time, you will know more about the character and trajectory of this man.

There’s a really critical peril here though.

On the one hand, a man who glibly dismisses his past immorality is dangerous, for your future marriage and your future children.

On the other hand, your dismissing him automatically on the basis of immorality is also dangerous. If he is repentant, seeing his past sin as hell-deserving but crucified, then you should receive him (all else being equal), just as you have been received.

You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man. Your sexual purity is your obligation as a creature of God. And you have rebelled at other points, and been forgiven. If you believe the gospel, you believe the gospel for everyone, and not just for yourself.

If your future husband is repentant, and forgiven, and yet you are “tortured” by the thoughts of his past, then the issue for you is one of personal pride and a refusal to see oneself as a gospel-forgiven sinner.

The issue for you with your future husband is discerning whether there are ongoing patterns, whether he agrees with God about the severity of this sin, and whether he has been cleansed from it by Golgotha Hill blood and Garden Tomb power.

Jesus was a virgin. His Bride wasn’t. He loved us anyway.

Do you have an ethical question? Send it to me at [email protected] I’ll keep it anonymous and change all the identifying details.

98 Comments

Wow. The gravity of the statement (among others in this post) has reached far into my already-married heart. Thanks for posting this.

AnnMarch 10, 2010

Amen and Amen! You summed up what I’ve long believed without being certain how to express. There is a problem if a person is tortured by a spouse’s sexual sin before the marriage. That last line says it all.

I love it when you do these posts. Thank you for the clarity and gospel-centeredness of this post.

hollyMarch 10, 2010

I could’ve asked the same question years ago, and this response would’ve saved me a lot of grief. I eventually came to the same conclusion, but it was a rough road getting there.

“Your sexual purity is your obligation as a creature of God” is so true. We are not owed anything simply because our particular sinful tendencies fell outside the area of fornication. I’m a bit concerned that the emphasis on sexual purity that is becoming more prevalent in the church today kind of misses this point. Why do we flee from any temptation or sin? So that we can be Pharisees and think ourselves somehow superior to those who fell into the sins that we managed to avoid?

Anyway, you gave this young woman an excellent response. I hope she takes it to heart.

Young people today – even Christian young people, sad to say – are more sexualized than in recent times, it seems. The landscape for those in their twenties, teens, and even younger looks bleak for marriage if these questions are not asked and resolved Biblically.

Your response, to this mother of three Christians (one married, the other two in their teen years), was so wise. Thank you – your writing is a blessing to my family.

Shanna EstigoyMarch 10, 2010

Dr. Moore,

I would add that other men (fathers, brothers, and/or spiritual leaders) ought to be involved in asking this young man about his history. In a culture where deception about secret sin is excused, a discerning, trusted man might notice inconsistencies where a young woman wouldn’t.

Derek TaylorMarch 10, 2010

You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man.

With all due respect, I think this statement frames this in an incomplete and unhelpful way. It is one thing to forgive a potential partner for past indescretions, it is another thing to consider that person a candidate for marriage. I’m not suggesting that sexual past is a determining factor, at least not by itself. But sexual past will have an impact on overall compatibility and will either contribute to equal yoking or non-equal yoking.

Take for example another factor that couples should look at – education. If one partner has a graduate degree and the other partner graduated high school, there is going to be an unequal yoking that CAN be overcome, but should not be overlooked. What about the case of someone who was addicted to drugs or alcohol for years, while the other partner has no experience with either. Are we to suggest or understand that these differences don’t matter, even with the assumption that all has been forgiven?

Differences don’t make one partner better than another or more/less worthy of God’s grace. But our experiences, interests, calling, personality and yes – sexual history – are factors that should be prayerfully considered.

WilliamMarch 10, 2010

@Derek Taylor,

Derek,

I understand your point, but I’m not sure I would consider this unequal yoking. I thought the context of 2 Corinthians 6 referred to deep entanglements with unbelievers such that contend with our commitment to the gospel. In this situation, two sinners are looking at marriage. Their sins are different, but they both hope in Christ. Educated or uneducated, virgin or not, they both share in hope and forgiveness. The simple fact that men and women are so different necessitates huge differences in our sinful struggles. Nevertheless, we are not unequally yoked in marriage.

Do you apply this passage more broadly than uneven entanglements with unbelievers?

I think the point is to model Christ’s love by forgiving rather than only overlooking or ignoring because God has forgiven.

Sincerely,
William

Derek TaylorMarch 10, 2010

@William,

I’ve heard varying interpretations, though I grant that the primary interpretation of 2 Cor 6 is as you described. But I don’t think that this means you should hold to only one application of this. Do you disagree with the scenarios I described (education, drug use)? You don’t think that these major differences wouldn’t at least factor in as you look for compatibility?

Looking at this issue purely through the lens of forgiveness is not sufficient. Allow me to explain. Suppose your church was looking for a pastor. Wouldn’t you want the search to include an assessment of the pastor’s background? Would you want to evaluate their credibility? Would you want to look at a track record of trustworthiness and integrity? If there was adultery or pilfering of church funds or drug use in his past, would you want to know? If the answer is “no”, please let me know what church you attend as I won’t be visiting. :)

There is a mistaken notion out there that to forgive necessarily means that trust is fully and immediately restored. To be selected as a candidate for marriage is to be placed into a sacred and trusted position. That means that the decisions that have been made in the person’s life should be evaluated in proper context. This has nothing whatsoever to do with their positional standing in Christ.

MariaMarch 12, 2010

@Derek Taylor,

What you say here is troubling to me. Do you imply that a man with a sexual past, however repentant, can only be well-married to a woman who understand this experientially? A pastor is called to a higher standard than his congregants, and I don’t see the Bible supporting spouses being held to this higher standard as well.

For a personal example, my husband has a history of problem with pornography. But he is repentant and constantly seeks the Lord with this sin. There are consequences to this. Before we were married I had to weigh what it meant for my trust, and now we are married.

But it would have been foolish of me to expect my husband to have had a perfect life. To only accept him if his sins were minor.

Our compatibility has little to do with matching sin areas. And you can’t be married if you’re not going to be willing to work through difficult things. Our compatibility has everything to with the choice to love each other and forgive each other. No matter what happens.

And for goodness’ sake, look at the men that Jesus chose to follow him. Matthew was a tax collector! Paul was a murderer and a hypocrite and he was restored to a trusted position. Can we do any less than Jesus in our marriages?

DerekMarch 12, 2010

@Maria,
Thanks for sharing this with us, I’m sure others will be glad to hear your story and be encouraged by your words.
I said in my very first comment that compatibility is complex and no single factor ought to be determinative, not even sexual history. But I also said that we can’t exclude it as a factor either. Would you disagree?

All of us come into this process of selecting a mate with a particular set of values and characteristics that we are looking for. God made us unique as individuals, so this shouldn’t surprise or disturb us. Now, most of us discover higher values and our desires usually change as we date/court/mature. We all need to be open and willing for God to change our heart in one direction or another, as happened with Hosea. Usually, what He needs to do is break us in our desire for much more carnal and unspoken wishes of a marriage partner, such as how they look or how much money they have, etc. So I would not be nearly as quick to tell this woman who wrote Dr. Moore, that a desire for a chaste partner is wrong. I think it is a holy desire and I do not believe for one minute that it stems from a root of self righteousness.

Perhaps God will give her new motivations that will override this desire, and I hope she is open to alternative paths that God has for her, but I don’t think it is right or natural or Biblical to minimize or impugn her motives as so many on this blog have done.

John KassoufMarch 20, 2010

@Derek Taylor, I agree with you Derek… Thanks for sharing your insights in this.

Incredible answer. Great job! One of the best I have heard on this tough question! I would only add this thought:

If the young lady has said she would only marry a virgin (made that commitment to herslef and to God, then she should keep to that as long as it was not tied to her own virginity in a “deal” type scenerio! I made that commitment and stuck with it and man am I glad I did!

Great job!

Tracy IrvinMarch 10, 2010

Wow. The last line is humbling. As the father of two daughters, though, I kinda (pridefully? idolatrously?) struggle with

“You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man.”

We are praying that God will give them virgin, virtuous, vitally Christian husbands. I guess I should repent of my double standard, though, for if they fall into sexual impurity, I want their future virgin husbands to see them through the gospel.
Thanks again for your insight. You always give us a lot to chew on!

Derek TaylorMarch 10, 2010

@Tracy,
I don’t think you have anything to repent of. You should have high standards for your children and their spouses. When your church selects elders, don’t you look at their credibility and integrity? And if so, doesn’t it matter if a person has proven credible and trustworthy for only 3 months? How about 5 years? How about their entire life? Isn’t this a noble thing to seek?

When a person is forgiven, that means that relationship is restored. Thanks be to God, this is the Gospel of grace. But it does not necessarily follow that you restore or place a forgiven soul to a high position of trust.

MarkMarch 10, 2010

@Tracy Irvin,

There is a double-standard in the way Tracy thinks about this. For me, I would be more considered if one of the guy’s your daughter brings home has a consistent pattern of ungodly attitudes even if he is a virgin than a guy who lost his virginity but was repentant of that sin and is presently leading a godly life that edifies everyone around him.

Caleb BarrettMarch 11, 2010

I’m sure Tracy would agree with you that we should have high standards for our children. But I believe he was saying that hypocrisy (maybe idolatry) needed to be repented of and if that was in his heart, then he would be right and repentance is necessary.

Derek – Your overall point is a good one – past experiences, along with many other things, factor into deciding whether someone is a good potential marriage partner. This line of thinking is in the realm of wisdom/prudence and I’m sure no one here would disagree with using wisdom in choosing a partner for marriage. But I believe part of Dr. Moore’s point is that someone’s past sexual sin should not automatically exclude them from consideration for marriage, especially as we remember that Jesus’ bride wasn’t faithful to him.

Derek TaylorMarch 11, 2010

@Caleb Barrett,
I agree with you. The problem is, Dr. Moore seems to be telling this young woman that if she can’t get over this man’s sexual past, it comes down to an issue of unforgiveness. To which I say: wait a minute here, back up the truck, friend. Now, that MAY be an issue here, but it may not. I think he should extend a little more grace to the woman here. If one of the things she is looking for in a spouse is that he is a virgin, is that such a terrible thing? Maybe her desire here is pure and is not born of unforgiveness or self-righteousness.

I just don’t believe we should give any person a guilt trip about having certain traits or interests or characteristics that we are looking for in a mate. For goodness sake, how many of us had much more carnal and superficial characteristics we sought that caused us to exclude people as a potential marriage partner? Is it wrong to have certain things we’re looking for in a mate?

I think the much better advice would be for a pastor to ask her to pray about this and ask God to show her if this is truly a characteristic she should be looking for in a spouse. He may have put this in her heart to protect her heart for the person God really does have for her. She should also ask God to reveal if she harbors self-righteous or unforgiving traits. Maybe that is the real issue here. But I think it is presumptuous and dangerous to assume that the latter is the case because this woman may experience guilt for something she has no reason to feel guilty about.

As you know, I don’t think I have ever responded to your site before, but I have been an avid reader for some time. This response to this young lady was spot on and you articulated the matter in terms of the gospel. It always seems to come back to the cross and our inability to stand righteous before God. I couldn’t have done a better job myself (not that I am capable of doing anything better than you. ;-) I feel the “money quote” you gave is the one I will list below:

“You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man. Your sexual purity is your obligation as a creature of God. And you have rebelled at other points, and been forgiven. If you believe the gospel, you believe the gospel for everyone, and not just for yourself.

If your future husband is repentant, and forgiven, and yet you are “tortured” by the thoughts of his past, then the issue for you is one of personal pride and a refusal to see oneself as a gospel-forgiven sinner.”

Thanks again and God bless!

Bro. Robin

Aldous HuxtableMarch 10, 2010

Dr. Moore, you have no idea how much this spoke to me. God was truly using you in this post. I can’t thank you (and the Lord, of course) enough. Truly divinely ordained timing.

MarkMarch 10, 2010

All sin has temporal consequences for all those who are truly redeemed. However, when it comes to issues of a potential spouse’s sexual history I think some measure of grace should be given if the person has been sincerely repentant and forgiven by the Lord.

If a potential spouse’s sexual past will disqualify him/her as your future marriage partner what about other sins? What if the person you’re dating started confessing he or she was dominated at one time by gambling, drugs, or witchcraft? Or less “tangible” sins like gossip, anger issues, jealousy, malicious pride, worldliness, etc.? This issue could be cut in any way. Any number of sins can be used then to justify oneself from breaking a dating relationship.

I suggest people read the book on dating written by Richard D. Phillips and Sharon L. Phillips titled “Holding Hands, Holding Hearts” (published by P & R). If a person has been truly repentant of his or her sexual past then grace should be given and you should continue in that dating relationship with the hope that it will lead to marriage someday (I’m not saying minimize the sin, for sexual sin is viewed as serious in Scripture). For me, if I was still unmarried and was in a situation where I was dating a girl to see if she was the right person for marriage I would be more gracious to her of her sexual past if she has truly repented than if she exhibited a pattern of bad attitudes to people at work.

John BrianMarch 11, 2010

Not only was his bride not a virgin, but God went to the house of prostitution to find the bride. The OT history of the children of Israel bears that out. The wonderful thing is that the bride will be presented to the groom “without spot or wrinkle.”

Eph. 5:26-27 “that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

[1] While it goes on a lot about being and wanting to marry a virgin, it has little or nothing to say when the door opens to someone who has, well, a past. Joshua Harris (and bless him for admitting this), is a case in point: he went on a lot in IKDG about the importance of virginity and then, when he *did* get married, it was to someone who in her pre-Christian life, had been a very naughty girl indeed.

[2] Even more confusing is the situation faced by many singles: having made a commitment to sexual purity, and told that God would bless them with a ‘better’ spouse for it, they then find themseles single …. as they then see other Christians who have been badly-behaved *as Christians*, then given the marriage and children denied them.

As I said earlier, “no sinner without a future, no saint without a past”.

Jim PembertonMarch 11, 2010

‘You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man.’

I see some approach this with some concern that they should not require their future spouse to be as sexually pure as they are. The supposition lies in a works-based righteousness where someone presumes to be more righteous than another because they early refrained from this particular sin. I would offer this, that whether someone has committed the act or not, it’s an extremely rare man who has not struggled with adultery in his mind.

The wisdom of repentance is extremely important and I would argue that a Christian man having sinned and repented may provide more security in fidelity than one who has never been tried by God’s grace in the forgiveness of open sin.

There is a matter of trust and too many of us filled with the hormonal excitement of early affection idolize our future spouses and expect to trust them to unreasonable ends. However, if a spouse is a gift from God then it is God we must trust instead, using the wisdom he provides to handle matrimonial prospects for it is that wisdom in trust that will sustain a marriage through the inevitable sins of our spouses.

PeterMarch 11, 2010

Brother,
Thank you dearly for this post. This has ministered deeply to my soul, and has freed me from fearing a wife who’d be frightened by my past. “Jesus was a virgin, his bride wasn’t, but he loved us anyway.” Amen.

Sincerely,
A blood bought sinner.

Peter W.March 11, 2010

I readily acknowledge that God does not owe me anything.
Not salvation.
Not food.
Not shelter.
Not friendship.
Not gainful and satisfying work.
Certainly not a spouse of any kind, let alone one who is a virgin.

However I will continue to hope and pray for all of these as good gifts from the hands of a good God. How he chooses to answer these prayers is up to Him, but I see no sin in asking for any of them….. including a virgin bride.

MarkMarch 11, 2010

@Peter W.,

No sin to ask for a virgin bride. However, you’re not peachy-keen yourself (just like all of us, whether virgin or non-virgin). Just remember, you probably have other sins you’ve struggled with that may question your marriageable qualification from another’s point of view.

DerekMarch 11, 2010

@Peter W.,

Excellent comments. Agree completely.

@Mark,

The desire for a chaste spouse is not some kind of impure or selfish desire. Why is there this knee jerk reaction by some folks, that this desire just has to be fueled by some form of self righteousness? Giving your spouse the gift of your virginity is perhaps the most special and wonderful gift you can give them. No one who gives it to their spouse is disappointed. Your desire to squash or minimize or bring Peter W. “down to size” is rather disappointing and sad. And it misses the point entirely.

MarkMarch 12, 2010

@Derek,

I didn’t say it was impure or selfish to desire a virginal spouse. My point is that there seems to be an inconsistency with those Christians who proclaim that they must become only wedded with other virginal Christians. Why only virginity? What about other sins? A Christian man or woman can break off a dating relationship because he or she found out that the person they were dating was involved in financial fraud at one point in time. So, the question again is: why only single out virginity even if that person has truly repented of that sin and God has forgiven him or her of that past transgression by Christ’s blood?

I was not trying to bring Peter W. “down to size” but trying to point out the narrowness of his thinking. I also don’t think it is charitable for you to impugn my motives in my post to Peter because of what I wrote to him. I thought I was being charitable to him as best as I could. I didn’t know that pointing out some inconsistency in a person’s view should bring on the reproach you just did to me above.

Not trying to boast or anything but I have enough formal theological education and enough service in church to pinpoint views that are theologically problematic. The whole idea that “loss of virginity is a special category to determine if I should continue to date someone even if he or she has truly repented” is a problematic view from a biblical point of view.

DerekMarch 12, 2010

@Mark,
It disturbs and saddens me that any Christian, much less one in ministry would jump to these conclusions or feel compelled to point to flaws in a person who MERELY and HUMBLY asks God for a virgin wife. Peter W. made it very clear that he doesn’t ask for this on the basis of his righteousness, nor does he see this as something that God is compelled to give him.

The appropriate response is to say, “brother, you hope and pray for a beautiful and wonderful thing. I hope the Lord grants your desire and prayer.”

jackMarch 12, 2010

I reject the idea that it is automatically a pride issue if someone does not want a relationship with a non-virgin.

This, to me, seems to be language designed to shame those who have struggled to remain virtuous. If the concerns about someone’s sexual past bother someone, then they should seek a virgin to marry.

This attitude risks coercing someone into a relationship that may later collapse due to this anguish.

Let each person be convicted according to the spirit. In Corinthians, Paul cautioned us not to cause a weaker believer to fall, even if what we do is lawful. He certainly does not instruct us to accuse them of being prideful.

I think that it is best to leave it up to that person and the Holy Spirit to decide whether honestly-felt concern is pride or whether it is the Spirit communicating with you.

That accusation is not one that I will lay on a person.

MarkMarch 12, 2010

@jack,

Jack, I disagree with your assertion. I think if a Christian becomes anguished because he or she later found out that the person they were dating was a non-virgin is an issue of pride or selfishness. Why be anguished? Because that person is not going to give you that virginity even if he or she has been cleansed of that sin? Even if the person you’re dating has all the qualities that make him or her a faithful Christian you’re going to kick that person to the curb for losing virginity that has been repented of? Also, I don’t think 1 Corintians 8:7-13 applies in this case. Paul was talking about activities done by mature Christians that may cause stumbling of immature Christians.

jackMarch 12, 2010

Side note:

Mark’s cocky answer to Peter’s very polite statement is a much better example of the pride problem than the one in the original post.

It’s odd – I have read so many posts on this topic and notice one main trend:

The virgins always state their preference for the same in very polite and non-judgmental ways. Then, the virgin-criticizers come out and lambast them, accusing them of all kinds of bad motivations.

I’m sorry if me being a virgin and wanting a virgin is patently offensive to some. But you’re not going to win us over with the hate. The vitriol is more likely to convince us that we are right.

MarkMarch 12, 2010

@jack,

Whoever said we expressed hate towards virgins? Nor do I find it offensive. In fact, I commend you for keeping yourself pure in a world filled with sexual immorality.

However, just like you said you’re “sorry if me being a virgin and wanting a virgin is patently offensive to some,” I also apologize for me being theologically educated and knowing more about the nuts of bolts of theology than many people that may cause offensive to some.

I just think people who insist on only being wedded to virgins don’t really have anything to substantiate their views based on good theology. Obviously, Christians like you also have a sin problem: an attitudinal sin problem because you can’t forgive the person who has already been forgiven by our Lord based on his work on the cross.

DerekMarch 12, 2010

@jack,
You make a good point re: judging the motivations of the heart that speaks to situations far outside of this current debate. As I Corinthians 4:5 says:

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

My advice to you or to anyone whose motives have been harshly and immediately challenged before all of the facts have even come in is this: just walk away from that person, graciously and without malice. Ask God to change your motives if they are indeed evil or sinful, but we are wise to doubt a judgmental person’s words and accusations.

@jack: “I’m sorry if me being a virgin and wanting a virgin is patently offensive to some.”

It’s not that I’m offended, it’s merely that (the original article pointed out), your standard is self-derived (i.e., not in Scripture, it’s your own), self-serving (it’s has nothing to do with showing grace to others), and is utterly contrary to a entire message of the Gospel. In other words — and I’ll call it this way — you are acting in a way that is unbecoming of an evil, wretched, undeserving sinner who has been redeemed by a graceful God before whom you now stand blameless. If God chooses not to honor your Gospel-contradicting, self-derived super-standard for a spouse, and He thus chooses to keep you single, um, you honestly will have no one to blame but yourself. Simply put, Jack, you need to learn to love like Jesus before you attempt a Gospel-centered marriage.

DerekMarch 16, 2010

@Eloquorius,
I think you need to familiarize yourself with I Corinthians 7, especially verses 37 and 38. Scripture does not lay a guilt trip on people if they don’t feel comfortable moving forward into a sacred covenant. In fact, this passage in particular indicates to me that if you have concerns of almost any nature, you can’t go wrong by staying single and serving God with all your heart.
I think this is a point we all need to remember and it applies outside of the context of this discussion on sexuality. Sometimes a person may feel nothing more than a sense that they are uncomfortable moving forward and we venture into very dangerous territory if we start castigating them and demanding that they have “proper justification”. We are very poor judges of motive, even when it comes to evaluating ourselves.

MariaMarch 12, 2010

The problem I see here is not a virgin vs. non-virgin debate. It is one of the fine line between desire and idolatry. It is good to want good things. As Christians we know that the brokenness in this world wasn’t meant for us. We long for the age to come in which sin no longer has a hold on us.

But when does our desire for the fully consummated (no pun intended) trump our ability to see people on earth for who they are? Which is broken and, hopefully, saved by Christ, in the process of being sanctified. I am in seminary, and I see far too many young men waiting for the ideal. When the truth is that women are broken, too. Sexually, morally, in any number of ways. To point out one of these problems to the extent that we break off a relationship does not seem Godly, to me.

What did Hosea do when God commanded him to marry a prostitute? She had not even begun to change but he went after her time and time again. I’m not advocating going out and finding a prostitute to marry unless that is a clear call from God, but it is a picture of how God pursues us. To turn around with a list of our prerequisites for marriages leaves little room for the Holy Spirit to work not just in how we forgive, but in our lives.

AaronMarch 12, 2010

Thank you, Dr. Moore. There is a lot of wisdom in this post. A few thoughts:
1. Discussions about this topic should always serve as a reminder to husbands and future husbands of the divisive nature of this subject (or wives/future wives) and the need to guard our bodies and hearts for the glory of God. Indeed, it is better for this to not be an issue for your spouse. I was on the receiving end of the “this is my sexual past” conversation. In spite of right thoughts about how to view my wife as a repentant, blood-bought child of God, it took time to make right feelings follow and I’m thankful that I have. She is a daily evidence of God’s grace and a treasured gift in my life. Praise God that He broke down the walls of my pride.
2. Your caution on prematurely having this talk is wise. When we think we’ve found “the one” our tendency is to get all the deep personal stuff out on the table right away, and that’s not helpful. If a person is worth marrying it will be because of things like relationship with God, character, shared goals, commitment to marriage, etc… not sexual past. There is wisdom in getting to know someone’s character, life goals, etc… to provide the foundation for the hard talks.

Ultimately, you’ve hit the nail on the head with your final statement. We are called to forgive as Christ forgave us.

DerekMarch 12, 2010

@Aaron,
Good points all. One important caveat that I think needs to be mentioned, though. There is another trap that many fall into, and that is in regards to sharing too little of who we really are in the courtship process. There may either be too little revelation of who we really are, or too much of the wrong type of revelation. Some couples will take your advice in the wrong way and will use it as an excuse to keep things in the dark that need to be exposed. A wise and Godly mentor couple or counselor can help a couple do this in an appropriate way in the right timing. Agreed that one month in is far too early for this though. But all too often, one partner learns about things a year or so into the marriage when they should have found out during or around the time of engagement.

You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. The statement is untrue. When a virgin man takes a wife, who is also a virgin, they become one before God. However, if either the man or woman has played the fornicator and is no longer a virgin, said fornicator may not be married to a virgin. The reason is elementary: the fornicator became one with someone else and is married in the eyes of God. Read and understand: (1 Cor 6:15-16 KJV) Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. This being the case, the woman in the report has every right to ask her husband-to-be if he is indeed a virgin. If he has played the field, she should release him and look for someone else. This law remains true if a divorced man or woman seeks to enter in marriage to another. As Jesus stated, It is impossible to make one twain again.

MarkMarch 12, 2010

@David Parsons,

I have heard this view before from some pastors (that sex automatically equals marriage). I don’t know how an honest exegete can come up with that conclusion even based on Paul’s strong language in 1 Cor 6:15-16. One way to refute this view is found in Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. In John 4:18, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that the man she is currently with is not her husband–even though they are doing things together that go “beyond the boundaries” (and no, they weren’t just going on innocent dates at the local eateries). That passage alone should refute the “sex = marriage” view.

I think your view that a Christian man who once “played the field” should be dumped by the Christian woman is a very simplistic solution. I don’t see it as being biblically reasonable to exhort people to break off their dating relationships with so-and-so even if he or she currently lives a godly and obedient life to the Lord.

Sexual sin is not the same as gambling, drugs, and drunkenness according to Scripture. Only one of these is said in Scripture to affect the emotional life to the extent that sexual sin does. First Cor. 6:16 teaches that joining one’s body to another outside of marriage produces a oneness that may have long-term consequences. Sex with another is never forgotten; it is etched in one’s memory. Consider: a person who has practiced or fallen into fornication will most usually create a doubt in the mind of the partner who has kept himself/herself from immorality in order to give virginity as a gift to his/her spouse. How many women, who know their husband has had a history of sexual impurity before marriage, not later are plagued with thoughts that he may be comparing her in his mind to other women with whom he has shared intimacy? Men may be especially sensitive to the idea that a wife has “enjoyed” sex with other men in the past and may wonder if he is as satisfying to her as they were. Can a virgin woman be criticized for desiring to have a husband who has not given parts of his heart to other women? Might she wonder if he is now giving her all his devotion? Dr. Moore should tread carefully in this area. The model in Scripture is purity from pre-marital sex. This young woman is simply desiring someone who shares her conviction. That is to be applauded, IMO. Such is not the case, and she has the freedom to judge whether she is ready to lower that standard without feeling that she is somehow self-righteous and prideful.

MarkMarch 12, 2010

@James West,

James, who decides that past sexual transgressions should be put in a special category when determining whether a person you’re dating is of marriageable quality? So, are you saying that a previous history of financial fraud, drunkenness, drug abuse, witchcraft, etc. should not be really considered problematic as much as a previous history of sexual immorality? That just doesn’t seem right to me. I thought we as Christians are to forgive just as God forgave us in Christ (Eph 4:32). Telling a non-virgin Christian you are dating that he or she is unqualified to be their future spouse sounds a bit unrighteously judgmental and even prideful to say the least.

jackMarch 12, 2010

Mark-

It has nothing to do with forgiveness. This is a crucial mistake that many people, including yourself, continue to make. Of course I know that all are sinners.

I simply would like a fresh start emotionally and sexually in marriage, and have been cautious to be able to provide the same to my future wife.

Additionally, two commenters just above me have shown some of the scriptural reasoning why I have a point.

I’m not inclined to heed the boast about your knowledge of spiritual “nuts and bolts”. Please pardon my skepticism at your self-stated ‘credentials’. On the internet, everyone is an expert, you know.

Your pride problem is preventing you from seeing that I do not have a sin problem.

I know what I want, and will either get it or remain single. Both are acceptable outcomes. The gibes of message-board pharisees are not likely to sway my opinion.

Anyway, the way you used the term “peachy-keen” – I could totally sense the anger you felt as you typed that . Certainly not the calm, deliberative comment I would expect from a scholar.

MarkMarch 13, 2010

@jack,

If you mean anger in this sense of unrighteous hatred towards a particular person here, then no. If you mean that I am rolling my eyes at some of the things I am reading here, then perhaps I am guilty of that. Just because I told Peter W. that he wasn’t “peachy-keen” himself wasn’t said out of unrighteous anger towards him, as you supposed. I was making a theological statement that is true of all of us: you, me, and everyone else posting (if you carefully read my response you would have known that). I also appreciate it if you next time truly assessed the situation before making a judgment call on my motives. This is a Christian blog forum let me remind you.

If I have expressed any prideful attitude towards people here then I apologize for that. But I am also a little taken aback by your dismissal about my theological/spiritual credentials because of some things I have posted here. And no, not all people who post on Christian internet blogs are scholars. God willing by his grace I plan to become an academic in a few years. I hope that I may use this knowledge for his Kingdom and the benefit of others instead of my own flesh.

I am a married man. I don’t have a personal stake on this issue like some young man in his early 20s writing these posts out of personal anger because he has made serious transgressions of this kind in the past. The reason why I write on the side of Dr. Moore on this issue is because I have found many professing Christians who have no clue on how to articulate a biblically sound harmatiology, especially as it relates to Christian living. This also affects the way they understand dating, how to relate with their boyfriend/girlfriend, and what appropriate judgment choices to make in evaluating the relationship.

Is it wrong of me to tell people how wrong they are on a certain issue when I can use Scripture and reason to back up my arguments? Is that really pompous and prideful? Perhaps it is not pride but a sense of frustration on my part because I figure I expect all true Christians to be well-knowledged in Scripture and theology.

JTMarch 12, 2010

Rejecting a man with a previous sexual history is not the same as saying your righteousness makes you a better person than him. We reject potential spouses for all sorts of small and mysterious reasons that are not judgements on their worth as humans or in their status as children of God. But their past history does matter and will play a role in the future.

Honestly if a guy or girl told you she had 50 previous partners, wouldn’t that be a reason to pause? Not out of pride?

We aren’t “owed” a beautiful spouse, or even a spouse at all. But that doesn’t stop us from being discriminating in our choices. Please ladies, do consider that God changes hearts, but don’t feel like its a sin if you don’t marry the nerdy church guy you don’t like, or if you can’t overlook a guy’s shady past.

MarkMarch 12, 2010

@JT,

A Christian woman rejecting a “nerdy guy” at church she is not interested in is a whole different can of worms to discuss. In fact, I would exhort the woman to respectfully not give into his advances if she is not romantically interested in him at all. If he is a mature Christian he would understand and move on and find someone who is interested in him. I would even say that the woman is sinning against the nerdy guy if she goes out with him with the pretense that she is interested when she is not (it is called lying).

In regards to breaking off a dating relationship because the person is a non-virgin even if the person has truly repented and bears the fruits of genuine faith I find biblically problematic. If all the right cards are there (e.g., mutual romantic feelings, mutual love for Christ, etc.) then I don’t see how a transgression (or transgressions) of the past that has truly been repented of and forgiven can be taken into such serious account that it will lead to a termination of the relationship. There something there that just doesn’t seem spiritually right.

DerekMarch 13, 2010

@Mark,
Part of the problem with your argument is that you are oversimplifying real world scenarios and as a result, are making straw man arguments. Allow me to explain.
We don’t live in a world where compatibility for marriage can be determined within a few dates, nor because we share the Gospel in common, nor a world where our past experiences – and yes, baggage – can be hermetically sealed off from our future or from who we are as a person. It is important to recognize this reality at the same time that we embrace the Gospel truth that God can and does work all things together for good for those who love him and are called according to His purposes.
We MUST NOT articulate and promote a false understanding or hermeneutic of forgiveness, whereby forgiveness demands that we pretend that consequences don’t occur or where the dynamic within a restored relationship changes.

Why?
To do so places an extra-Biblical weight and guilt upon the shoulders of believers and most specifically, innocent parties. It is exactly this kind of false and dangerous notion of forgiveness that is used to enable and perpetuate wrong behavior and slipshod standards and little to no church discipline. It is also a form of emotional blackmail to slip things into the umbrella of forgiveness that don’t belong there in the first place.

Furthermore, we must not embrace an understanding of forgiveness that gives license to forgiven people to go around demanding that they be released from all of the consequences of their actions and life choices. I can and should expect all brothers and sisters in Christ to forgive me and be reconciled into the family of God, but I can’t force another believer to hire me, be my friend, elect me as elder or be my spouse.

Thanks be to God, every day of the year broken saints are restored to ministry, non-virgins marry virgins and damaged relationships are restored. This is the model. But I believe that we misrepresent the Gospel of grace when we coerce and demand believers to formulate sacred covenants with other believers without regard to track record or even compatibility, for that matter.

MarkMarch 13, 2010

@Derek,

There is much in your post I don’t have any disagreements with. I certainly concur that a heart of willing forgiveness should be given to those believers who have a willingness to apologize and repent. I also certainly agree that no believer has a right to coerce another believer to become their employer, friend, and spouse. I don’t know anyone who would disagree with that.

I must disagree slightly on a particular point. I don’t believe it is a false hermeneutic of forgiveness to express something that Dr. Moore expressed in his response to that girl. Too many professing Christians today live in a way where their desires and wants triumph over what is actually good in God’s sight. For instance, the issue of marital compatibility. We all agree that Christians should not get romantically involved with people who are unbelievers or living unrepentant ungodly lives (we have that stated in Scripture). Having said that, do you think it is biblically spiritual to tell a person you’re dating (even if all the right pieces are in place): “Even though we are mutually attracted to each other and love the Lord, I think it is better if we break up because you enjoy outdoor activities and I enjoy reading books at home”? You see the problem?

Yes, the true gospel is a gospel of grace. If you and I had a discussion of theology privately you would know that I am a firm believer in the five solas of the Reformation and reject all the new aberrations promoted these days regarding the doctrine of justification (yes, you heard it, I believe the NPP is a serious heresy). However, that is only one side of the coin. What ever happened to biblically oriented duty and obligation? What about being sanctified not only in our actions but with our hearts as well? What about crucifying our own selfish desires for the glory of God and the good of our neighbors? Did you know that the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians that even attitudinal sins practiced as a way of life can bar one from the Kingdom of God (Gal 5:20-21)? That is why I am passionate about Christians not only getting their soteriology right but also their harmartiology. The way we live (and think) as Christians have eternal consequences, and sometimes those consequences are not merely about getting lots of rewards in heaven but where we will spend eternity.

DerekMarch 14, 2010

@Mark,
I agree re: danger of attitudinal sin, though we must keep in mind that the passage referred to in Galatians 5 speaks to consistent behavioral patterns and attitudes that are the markings of an unregenerate person. If we see a person marked by these things and yet also claims to be a believer, then we should ask this person directly if they have truly comprehended and embraced Christ and the Gospel. See also I John 1 and 2.
I’m not thinking of compatibility problems that are as superficial as outdoor activities vs. book reading. Plus, those kinds of things emerge pretty early in the relationship. I’m thinking of deeper issues that emerge as the relationship gets more serious. There does come a point in time where baggage does get addressed. Too many of us think that frank and honest discussions of baggage shouldn’t happen because forgiveness dictates that even the consequences of our sin should be thrown into the sea of forgetfulness (a common misreading of the text). Does your future mate have debt? How much? $3,000? $50,000? Does he have an STD? It might take a while for this to process and for a future spouse to count the cost before they are ready. And maybe they won’t ever be. So these are difficult questions that have to be put on the table and prayed about, because hasty covenants and wishful thinking is reaping a harvest of divorce and heartbreak in the Church today. Furthermore, we need to extend grace to weaker believers who don’t have the faith or strength or maturity to handle our own particular baggage. This extends well beyond the topic of sexual history and marriage.
There’s nothing wrong with challenging a friend to examine his heart for self righteousness or unforgiveness. But if we make an assumption that their inability to deal with a certain type or amount of baggage stems from an unforgiveness or self-righteousness, I think this is very dangerous territory and is quite possibly a form of emotional and spiritual blackmail. We shouldn’t feel guilty about having either a lack of peace or joy before moving forward into a lifelong covenant. It may be God’s way of saying stop or slow down.

WOW! This has been interesting late night read. I have laughed and cried reading a blog post.
#1 Dr. Moore, thank you for such an amazing piece of advice. Several have said it already, but the last line “Jesus was a virgin, his bride was not, he loved us anyway”………blew me away. I think I’ll write it on an index card, and keep it up to look at to remind me of the truth behind it. Great quote!! that did make me cry!
#2 Now for the laughter! Seriously folks, come on. Some of the quotes in previous posts have caused me much laughter tonight, so thanks for that. The whole “I’m better than you b/c I’m holding out for a virgin” or “I’d never marry below a graduate degree” statements had me shaking my head and laughing out loud, and oh “I’m smarter than you b/c I study full time, or I’m a pastor, so I know these things” (sigh and laugh)
#3 We are to model Christ (hey look at that, I’m not a pastor, but I think I got it right, right??) Men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. How does he love us? He takes us off the streets, turns former meth addicts into preachers and teachers of the gospel of grace, he takes the former whiskey bent and hell bound and turns them into a missionary for the kingdom. He takes a whore and turns her into a lady who has been married to the same man for 40 years and has 9 grandchildren, all who know and love the Lord. He takes a young woman who made a mistake (or several mistakes), picks her up, dusts her off, wipes her tears away, cleans her with his own blood, takes her to his father who declares her clean……….then that same young woman meets someone (like some of the men who have commented to this post), they begin a relationship, they seem to be a perfect match, then he finds out about her past mistakes, her transgressions……and he says to her (in the sweetest Christian cop out voice he can find)…..”oh, you’ve repented, you’ve been forgiven…. well, thats not good enough for me. I’m holding out for better”. That is a denial of the gospel. Nothing more, nothing less. When the blood of the one who died for us isn’t good enough to truly make someone clean, to make them a new creature, then we are all in trouble.

RobertMarch 16, 2010

@Brandi C.,

Amen!

jackMarch 13, 2010

Mark-

I understand your point of view, but will still point out that you leveled an accusation of pride first, so it seems disingenuous to suggest that I alone was attributing motives.

Second, it’s difficult to read your last post where you are fully approving of a woman rejecting a guy for ‘nerdiness’, but not okay with rejecting for being a non-virgin.

In the same situation I think that I would encourage the girl rejecting the nerd to search her heart. Nerdiness is not a sin. Premarital sex IS. There are many young men who are quiet and somewhat awkward. Who will marry them? “Someone else”, no doubt. Maybe that girl is not exactly perfection either.

So we reject on a characteristic that does not reflect on character, but look the other way on a serious spiritual issue?

You were content to tell a virgin that they were not so ‘peachy-keen” that they should reject a non-virgin. Where is your similar advice for that girl? Would you not try to point out that she’s not “all that ” to be rejecting the same guy?

Personally, I’d rather marry a shy, awkward girl who is a a virgin, that the hottest girl in church if she’s been with a dozen guys. I don’t care how cute she is. I have trained myself to be attracted to character, so I am not a slave to physical attraction the same way most people are.

This is a valuable characteristic that is missing in the church today. Just as the body can be trained to desire healthy food instead of junk, the soul can be trained to desire Godly things like chastity and integrity.

By ENABLING AND ENCOURAGING young people to focus on attraction foremost, we have raised a generation of sensualists and harlots.

MarkMarch 14, 2010

@jack,

Jack, I don’t see how not establishing a relationship with a person you’re not romantically attracted/interested in is problematic from a Christian standpoint. If a Christian girl is not in to “nerdy guys” then she should date Christian guys who don’t fit that image (and vice versa). Romantic attraction cannot be helped. It is not a sin to think “No, he/she is not my type. I better not pursue this.” In fact, for both parties it is the right thing to do. However, I find it problematic to break up a relationship that has already been established because of some sin in the past that has been repented of (unlike sin that is currently going on). Like Dr. Moore said, just because you’re a virgin doesn’t mean God owes you one. If you like shy, awkward, nerdy girls who are virgins, all the blessings to you. But don’t think that just because a guy (or girl) decides to date (and eventually marry) a good-looking non-virgin is somehow spiritually compromising. The main issue that Dr. Moore tried to bring out is in dating relationships how we can manifest a Christlike attitude to those who repented of their sexual brokenness (which means we must be merciful to those who were broken by past transgressions, which is hard to do a lot of times in this area).

JuliaMarch 15, 2010

For a young woman contemplating marriage to a man with an extensive sexual history, there are some very real concerns.

The most obvious and easily dealt with is the possibility of sexually transmitted disease. A clear test result sets that worry to rest.

A long line of ex-girlfriends, some of whom may have met his family and perhaps are still in contact. Imagine the awkwardness and pain of running into these women at the supermarket, at church, etc. You may be his wife, but these women have all had a piece of him.

Regarding this: “You are not ‘owed’ a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man.”

Mr. Moore, pardon me for screaming on your blog, but THANK YOU!!!!! I’ve been involved in singles ministries, dating, etc. for over 10 years and it never ceases to amaze me the number of Christians (to be honest, nearly all women) who have remained sexually chaste and absolutely will not even consider a man who is not the same — even longtime singles who are now in their 30’s or 40’s who bemoan how God hasn’t provided them with their fellow virgin soul mate. If you pin ‘em down, the self-entitlement comes oozing out of the shadows of their heart. You statement is dead on because many I’ve run across do indeed have the notion that owes them for all their work as maintaining purity.

MarkMarch 15, 2010

@Eloquorius,

Self-entitlement. Excellent choice of words. Was looking for that word but couldnt’ find it. Thanks Eloquorius. It just amazes me how people who call themselves Christians are unaware of their own follies of the heart. It is discussions like these that sometimes I wish that all Christians take basic courses in Christian theology at a reputable seminary.

jackMarch 15, 2010

I support those women. And I understand their pain.

Better to remain single and broken-hearted, though, than to marry and be broken-hearted.

Millions of our young people are being seduced into a sexually corrupt lifestyle.

Some things cannot be undone. Both people will pay a huge price: The chaste person who remains single, and the person who has premarital sex who may be declined for a marriage.

RobertMarch 16, 2010

Good answer to the question. However, I believe that it is better for the one with a sexual past to bring it up at the very beginning of the courtship.

JuliaMarch 16, 2010

I wrote my previous comment in haste, but seriously – yuck! The real problem with sexual promiscuity is the mindset, the values system, that underlies the pattern of behaviour. Callousness, immaturity, irresponsibility. The blindly selfish belief that it’s okay to treat other people like disposable objects to be used for one’s own pleasure then discarded when they become an inconvenience. Total lack of respect for the bodies and emotions of others, let alone one’s own emotional and physical integrity.

Recreational dating is a bloodsport in which I have refused to participate. Am I deviant for not wanting to degrade myself in an attempt to please someone who will soon tire of me anyway? I find it sad that so many people from Christian backgrounds have absorbed worldly values to such an extent that remaining a virgin until marriage is an alien concept.

True chastity after a promiscuous lifestyle would involve complete renewing of the mind, and cutting ties with people and places associated with the behaviour. It isn’t enough just to say “it’s all in the past now” and act like it never happened.

The key verse about sexual sin:
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

And no, we are not owed anything, but we are told to ask and we will receive.

Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

See also Matthew 18:19, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, Luke 11:9, John 14:13, John 15:7, John 15:16, John 16:23, James 1:5,
1 John 3:22; 1 John 5:14.

The desire for marriage to a godly spouse is not a sin.

EbiMarch 16, 2010

@Julia,

I do understand what you are saying and will agree that I would also take this into consideration. But I am assuming any intended partner of yours would have to be a Christian, right?

On that premise, what happens if this man became a Christian as a young adult. And so when he was “in the world”, he had shared and partaken in the worldview of sex outside of marriage not being a big deal but now that he has surrendered his life to Christ, he now has a Christian worldview (as we all ought to) and thinks differently of sex, looking at it according to the standards that GOD has set out for us? Do you still hold his past against him, even though he is the man that GOD had intended for you all along and has been preparing for ? Believe me, stuff like this happens.

Mark me, I am not saying that there is something wrong with wanting someone who kept themselves sexually pure, but we do not always get what we want…even when we ask for it:).

“True chastity after a promiscuous lifestyle would involve complete renewing of the mind, and cutting ties with people and places associated with the behaviour. It isn’t enough just to say “it’s all in the past now” and act like it never happened.”

That is why in Romans 12:2, we are asked “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” The blood and grace of Jesus Christ is truly life changing and anyone can be changed when they have come in contact with Christ. No one would expect you to say “it’s all in the past now” and act like it never happened but at the same time we cannot constantly judge a person by their past and use it to solely determine that person’s character based on it.

“The desire for marriage to a godly spouse is not a sin.”
I have to say a godly spouse is not to be detemined on if that that person has a sexual past or not but based on if that person is daily submitting and subjecting themselves to the will and ways of GOD, if he or she has a Christian worldview and looks at Christ as Lord of his or her life.

KarynMarch 18, 2010

The biblical image of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church as His bride is a symbolic representation. In fact, the incarnate Jesus was single and celibate, and God chose a virgin to be the mother of His only Son, but for those who are going to try to assert that symbolically, Jesus didn’t marry a virgin because the Church is not a virgin, well, then you will have to acknowledge that since the Church is more than one person, Jesus is also a polygamist. Is this the kind of tolerance some folks are pushing for? And why stop there? The Church consists of males and females, young and old, so, homosexual marriage, marriage to a minor, hmm? Sadly, many of the comments in this thread demonstrate the trendy and popular attempt to diminish the value of premarital virginity as a significant virtue in relationships, and replace it with the worldly virtue of immoral sexual experience. This attitude is a transparent and poor excuse for the error of taking any element of choice in the symbolic relationship between Christ and the Church, and turning it into a literal example of what God intends for us in actual, temporal marriage relationships between mortals. The suggestion that premarital virginity is not really all that valuable of a virtue in a potential mate, does not hold up based on the symbolic reference to Christ and His Church.

Terry Mattingly, Director of the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, author of the weekly “On Religion” column for Scripps Howard News Service, Founder of Get Religion.org, and author of the book, “Pop Goes Religion”, recently stated that results of a survey of young Roman Catholic Milennials, (age 18-29) showed that only 20% thought premarital sex is morally wrong. I doubt that percentage is vastly different in other American Christian denominations. Mr. Mattingly also reported, “You remember the ‘True Love Waits’ Movement, among Southern Baptists and supposedly at one time, Roman Catholics, I found it fascinating that many Southern Baptist Churches did not get involved in “True Love Waits’, not because young people weren’t willing to take the oath, but because it was embarrassing for their divorced parents to take the oath. Think about that.”

As far as this idea of entitlement goes, we all know that before God, no one is entitled to anything. You’re not entitled to marriage at all, but unlike some here, I choose not to demean marriage or criticize those who value it over and above singleness.

You know, as much denial as even the Church is in over all the destruction sexual immorality has caused, including the lives it has left in shambles, the only thing left to say is that it is appalling to continue to witness the assault on the remaining few who by God’s grace, have valued His Word on premarital virginity and taken it seriously.

RodneyMarch 19, 2010

Jesus did marry a virgin Church. Let us look at some verses. Jesus is the High Priest

Hebrews 2:17
Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

High Priest according to the Law must marry virgins.

Lev. 21:13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a harlot—these he shall not marry; but he shall take a virgin of his own people as wife. 15 Nor shall he profane his posterity among his people, for I the LORD sanctify him.

The Gospel say Christ cleanses His sinful bride, thus making her spotless and pure. . . a virgin.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

Christ cleanses us and this is a miracle. This miracle allowed Christ to fulfill the law as our High Priest. To take this beautiful picture and advocate acceptance of marriage to those lacking virginity is reaching.

Also, people forget that God made a woman’s body to bleed when losing her virginity. This is the blood of a marriage covenant.

Deu 22:13 “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ 15 then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Notice how blood is proof of the commitment/marriage/covenant?

Also, premarital sex mandates marriage according to the Old Testament.

Deu. 22:28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Again. . .

Ex. 22:16 If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.

I find it a shame that people do not read their Old Testament!

Robert HallMarch 23, 2010

@Rodney,

I hate to beat a dead horse, but do you also celebrate Sukkot, Shabbat, or eat unleavened bread for the duration of Pesach?

These are also mandates from God in the Old Testament. If you keep the law, then there is no longer grace.

RodneyMarch 23, 2010

@Robert,

Should I mention Matthew 5:17?

Everything in the OT applies to us in its fulfilled form. How does Christ fulfill “Thou shalt not kill?” Well, don’t kill. . . but I digress.

Have you not read this in your New Testament?

2 Corinthians 11:2
For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Revelation 14:4
These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

Once again, Christ’s bride is a virgin. OT and NT say the same thing.

CharlotteMay 29, 2010

Hello to all of you,
Thankyou first to Dr Moore this is a good article.
The arguments posed here on both sides of this discussion are all good but not great. the virgins have a good point on desireing a virgin when they marry-note that they have mostly said that this is what they desire not that they will not accept less than that. non virgins seem to get a little uptight about this fact and I understand why, but you must be careful that you don’t become self righteous by saying you would accept this (even though you are already a non virgin so this can never be)

who you marry is your own personal choice and it cannot be criticised simply because you have a standard you adhere to. people who are committed to marrying only a virgin are generally happy to remain unmarried if they cannot find such a one-I admire that, mostly such people don’t complain about being single because that is their choice. the same as a converted nonvirgin who choses to remain single because they are not ‘pure’ I admire that too.
I also admire the person who has the strength of character to pull away from sexual sin and chose chastity til marriage this is a hard slog too.
I am a virgin.
I struggle with the thought of marrying a nonvirgin, but not because of that persons past sin. but because it might lead me into the sin of bitterness jelousy fingerpointing and constantly reminding them of their sin. My sister is dating a virgin and she is not, he makes her feel bad often by this, not intentionally but simply by showing her up. I never want to do that.
also I don’t think it is a bad thing to want to marry a virgin the romance of it IS lovely. and that is Gods plan in perfection. We do have sexual sin in our midst past and present and it is a hard thing. I don’t want to accept this so I want a virgin, but I am not saying I will not accept it in a repented man. that is no more wrong than a non virgin wishing they were a virgin.

I currently like a young man (who probably does not know I exist) but the reason I like him so much is because of his checkered past, he was on drugs he lived with several girls and was engaged and he has changed by Gods power and I admire him so much for that. He is an example to every young person in our church because of his dedication to cleansing himself and being better than he is.

sadly the opinion of some in our church is that he is not good enough for the girls in the congregation because of his past, on the other hand are young men who have never sinned sexually in the same congregation are held up as examples and I cannot stand them they are arrogant ignorant and self righteous on the basis of their so called purity.

I want so badly to marry a young man who is a virgin but choices displayed I would chose a non virgin with a right heart every time.
But I STILL WANT A VIRGIN and nobody can take that from me and it is not a sin.
sometimes the attitudes going alongside are sinful but the desire itself is not a sin God himself says it is a good thing.

It is also NOT A SIN for a non virgin to want a virgin for a spouse because this is wanting a good thing from the Lord.
I do not condemn a non virgin for wanting this, I congratulate them because this means they want a good thing for themselves but also that they desire their spouse to be protected from the pain of that sin they have experienced them selves.
I would be saddened to find out if this young man I admire who is not a virgin is of the belief that he does not deserve a virgin because of his past. I believe he does just as much as any virgin.
I also want this for any repentant non virgin because God says he will give us all the best gifts. and lets face it virginity is the best gift. even if you have not got that to give any more you must agree.
I write with love to you all and I hope not to anger anybody with my thoughts.
Charlotte

AnonymousJuly 03, 2010

“You are not “owed” a virgin because you are. Your sexual purity wasn’t part of a quid pro quo in which God would guarantee you a sexually unbroken man. Your sexual purity is your obligation as a creature of God.”

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. I, personally, am saving myself until marriage and YES I expect to wed a virgin and YES I am “owed” a virgin. In a society were sex is everywhere, God completely understands how hard it can be to actually commit to saving yourself until marriage. So I believe that a person will rewarded for that.

I have no reason to settle for less that what i’ve bargained for. If he’s not virgin, he’s not for me, point blank.

That particular area of your response, is VERY discouraging and it sends the message that one has to settle for the person who’s already shared themselves with someone before them and find a way to satisfied with that. God’s greatest want would be for a man and woman (both virgins) to come together and share their pure love (without baggage and sexual history from someone else). Yes God, does “owe” me. He said it Himself.

Russell Moore is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the moral and public policy agency of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.READ MORE